Talk:Vandals

Vandals was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Morocco, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Morocco on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

I wonder what the ancient Vandal civilization would look like. Would they look Asian, like Mongols or Huns? or Germanic? Norse? North African? or some mix? does anyone have any information that we could add to the article? unsigned edit by User:NickDupree 13:42, 30 November 2005

They would look like Germans that is where they were from until the Huns pushed them accross the frozen Rhine in 406 AD. unsigned edit by User:209.206.165.48 05:05, 6 March 2007

The Vandals are well described as a "Germanic" people and the common ethnological description of what a Vandal looked like may be the proto-typical North German or West Slavic person. The Vandals' namesake is similar to the "Finns", "Fenians", "Veneti", "Vends" and "Wends", other ethnic and tribal groups' namesakes are very identical. But, the Finns spoke a Finno-Ugric (not Indo-European language) throughout Eastern and Central Europe at the 1st millennia BC. It's unclear whether or not the Veneti were close relatives of the Vandals in their original homeland of present-day Poland, Slovakia and Hungary were a Germanic or Slavic (Indo-European) or a Finnic or Hungarian (Uralic-Altaic) speaking people. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 01:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

According to Procopius;

“

There were many Gothic nations in earlier times, just as also at pressent, but the greatest and most important of all are the Goths, Vandals, Visigoths and Gepaedes . . . All these, while they are distinguished from one another by their names, as has been said, do not differ in anything else at all. For they all have white bodies and fair hair, and are tall and handsome to look upon, and they use the same laws and practise a common religion. For they are all of the Arian faith, and have one language called Gothic; . . .

”

Procopius, The History of the Wars Book III: The Vandalic War (part 1), chap 2 v 1, c.545

I checked months ago that using "Catholic" for the early church which divided later into the modern Catholic and Orthodox churches is correct (in the meaning of "universal"). However, I believe it is strongly misleading. Byzantium in this meaning was "Catholic" while it already had many traits of the later Orthodox church (for example Greek as the liturgy language). Therefore using "mainstream Christian" is much better in a popular encyclopedia as it does not create the misleading notion that by "Catholic" we mean the modern Roman Catholic church. -Friendly Neighbour 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Which implies that Arians and Donatists were not mainstream (there were probably more Donatists than Catholics in the area). Which is biased. The current text states that:

Differences between the Arian faith adhered to by the Vandals and Christian Church or Donatists was a constant source of tension in their African state. Most Vandal kings, except Hilderic, persecuted Catholics to a greater or lesser extent. Members of the clergy were exiled, monasteries were dissolved, and general pressure was used on non-conforming Christians. Although mainstream Christianity was rarely officially forbidden (the last months of Huneric's reign being an exception), they were forbidden from making converts among the Vandals, and life was generally difficult for the Christian clergy, who were denied bishoprics.

This text confuses the Catholics and Donatists and implies that the Arians were not Christian. Therefore it is both misleading and biased. The text describes Catholicism as "mainstream Christianity" which is also biased. It states that "the Christian clergy" "were denied bishoprics" which is true of the Catholic Clergy and may be true of the Donatist clergy, but wasn't true of the Arian clergy. Jacob Haller 19:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we should find a phrasing which avoids the question whether Arians were Christian or not. This is a loaded question as many modern Christian churches define Christianity in a way which excludes the Arians (historically I believe it was done on purpose). This is an article on Vandals, not on the Christianity so we should avoid a war on the definition of the latter term. Therefore let's propose a name for non-Arian Christianity other than "Catholic" which (as I write above) is massively misleading in the context. -Friendly Neighbour 20:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If we want to discuss both the Donatists and the X in one statement, but not the Arians, we can say Trinitarian Christians, in contrast with Arian Christians (recognizing that describing these as Arian is also problematic). I'm not sure how to describe the X but not the Donatists except by calling the X Catholics (recognizing that these could be considered part of the Eastern ones as well). Jacob Haller 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a good name as long as we define it - we cannot expect a non-expert reader to understand it. When we mention Roman Empire or later Byzantium, we can add that we mean the official denomination of both. -Friendly Neighbour 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacob, I hope that the version we have now, after your correction of my version, is the consensus one which can survive for some time. It is slightly on the side of counting Arians as Christians (other Christians of then era would probably not agree) but that is probably the right thing to do looking at the conflict in hindsight. In fact I believe this is the question of Christianity definition and definitions are not something worth arguing. -Friendly Neighbour 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I am "non-expert" and on reading this entry I cannot tell that the Vandals were Christian. Yes, if I link thru Arian I find that they were Christian kingdoms warring with Christians kingdoms. So, as History is told by the victors, this omission perpetuates the demonization of the Other (or is that Victory Over the Heretics?). In my high school World History, we were taught, or were lead to believe, that the Vandals and Visigoths were pagan. So imagine my surprise to enter a Visigoth "cathedral" in Toledo, Spain. Why perpetuate the misconception? Gnach (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a point: most academics use the term "Nicene Christians" for the persecuted Christians, since the follow the Council of Nicea (cf. Arian controversy)(cf. Courtois, Merills, Shanzer, Schwarz, etc.). Also, the Nicene Christians referred to themselves as "Catholic", as in their opening statement on the Counsil of Carthage (Victor Vitensis III.1). I would prefer the term Nicene Christians (or Nicenes), for Trinetarians can also cause confussion in regards to several Eastern Churches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.8.70 (talk) 21:46, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

From where the Vandals came and to where they dissapeared? All participating to create good article of Valdals have omitted one possible link to so called Butonis (Budin Votjakis) and two other Finno Ugrian tribes which entered from Valgia Kama c. 50 BC to 100 AD to Bohemia and Vistula areas. Butonis belonged to Markomanni Reich in Bohemia and Silesia together with Zumis. There was also Uitonis (Jotunis) around Elbing River.This according to Strabo. Tacitus puts even better by adding Finnois and Ptolemaios describes Phennois. All took part to Markomanni war trek against the Romans in Pannonia.The Roman sources mentions also Limigantes who built wooden heated houses along the Theiss River in Pannonia. Their war cry was Marha,marha when they were attacking against Roman Legions. Limigantes were allied to Sarmanthians and most probably also Ud-murt tribe. Why all this is missing from the text? The Germanized names for Vandal "kuninkaat" (Kings) is nothing new. As long as someone can prove which language the Vandals used, their origin remains unknown. Limigantes seems to have returned back to Oka upper source to form origins to Vjatitsis as recorded by P.J. Jakobi in his research in 1904 - 1906 and recorded in Venäjän Maantieteellisen Seuran Julkaisuja (Russian Geographical Societys Publications) XXXII 1907 St. Petersburg.

What happened after 534 when King and 2.000 best warriors were taken to Constantinople to the remaining Vandals in North Africa? According to one Arab historian they started a new trek by packing their belongings to camels, donkeys and horses and started wandering toward south along "The Great Caravane Route" across Sahara to Niger River. From old German map dating by 1914 and published in Leipzig, the names presented sounds familiar to Finno Ugrians. One tribe settled around Tsade (Sade = Rain) Lake to Kanuri district (Kuka, Marte). Some settled to Keppi and Rima Rivers (Ilo, Raha, Tilli, Konni, Sirmi). But the main stream settled to River Niger bend area. (Karinaama, Kompa, Kupela, Ponsa, Terä, Kurki, Jatakala, Karu, Sallakoira, Sumpi, Pore, Kiri, Luta, Jako, Kutiala, Kuoro). Over the years they seems to have been assimilated with local inhabitants, both Arabs and Negros. If I now remember correctly one tribe even about 50 years ago told that their ancestors were white men and woman of Asian origin. (Sarmathians or Alains?).

JN

Ingenious ideas. But personally I think that Vandals were more related to Eskimos and Bushmen. 82.100.61.114 20:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense: "According to the law of succession which he had promulgated, his successor was not the eldest son but the oldest male member of the royal house (law of seniority). Thus he was succeeded by his son Huneric (Hunerich, 477–484), who at first protected the Catholics, owing to his fear of Constantinople." It says not his son, but then his son. Was his son also the oldest male member of the royal house? -Reagle 21:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a speculation - I don't know where I read it - that the ending -fal (-val) was a sign of Vandalic (sub)tribes or clans, respectively. As you know, a group called NAHANARVALI is listed among old Lugians by Tacitus. Then we know Victufali, who curiously lived in the same area like Vandals-Hasdingi. And we also know the Lacringi, who were close allies of the Hasdingi and later disappear from historical sources in Dacia. Curiously, they disappear in the same area, where shortly after a tribe called the Taifali gets into historical sources. Currently I don't have enough time to deal with it, but if you had any info concerning this, it would be very useful. 82.100.61.114 20:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Decline section, can we add that Sicily was lost to Odoacer's Kingdom in 477 AD? That's mentioned in the article about Odoacer. If true, then it would help spruce it up a little bit.

Also, the Euratlas map of Europe in 500 AD shows a "Roman-Moor Kingdom", which I haven't seen anywhere else, but also in Bruce Gordon's Regnal Chronologies entry for the City of Constantine, he mentions that the city never fell to the Vandals, but instead remained in Roman hands throughout the Vandal period. If correct, it might help improve the article to show that the Vandals didn't conquer ALL of Roman North Africa. Thomas Lessman (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that this page is a frequent target of vandalism. Would it be reasonable to protect it in order to stop the edit war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.207.60 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The page said that the Kings of Sweden styled themselves "Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex" and claimed that it meant "King of the Swedes, Goths and Vandals". This is in fact not true, and it means "King of the Swedes, Goths and Vendes". I edited the page to reflect this, and added a note about the words being commonly confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.17.160 (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is "götar" in the Danish title translated as Goths but Geats in the Swedish title? This is very confusing. Shoudln't the article use the same translation of "götar" - or at least explain why it's not?

"King of Denmark, the Goths and the Wends" [...] Starting in 1540, Swedish kings (following Denmark) were styled Suecorum, Gothorum et Vandalorum Rex ("King of the Swedes, Geats, and Wends").

Some historians, especially Slavic, think that Vandals are the name of West Slavic People Veneds (Венеди, Weneds, Wanadals), forefathers of modern Chechs, Slovaks and Polaks, which was called Vandals by their Germanic neighbours and relatives and which together with Germanic Goths plundered Rome.

Presently, a large number of archaeologists and historians, except germanicist bigots, have come to think of it reasonable to identify the Vandals with the proto-West-Slavs due to the clear continuation from the Przeworsk culture to Prague-Korchak having been revealed, particularly since Poland and its neibouring states were democratised in 1989. The main article, therefore, seems largely biased in this regard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.209.90.149 (talk) 05:53, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no way the Vandals can have been Slavs. We do have a number of personal names, which are all Germanic, including Gaiseric, Hilderic, Thrasamund, Guntharmund, Gento, Gunderic, and we have some fragments of the Vandalic language (a drinking toast and a religous formular, which are clearly Germanic as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I see comments on here from over five years ago. Doesn't this ever get archived? 98.82.21.78 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Most talk pages on Wikipedia only get archived when someone thinks they are getting too long to use. In the vast majority of cases that means they never get archived because the page rarely gets visited. Some of the most popular articles get archived automatically, but that is very much the minority. SpinningSpark 00:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

. . . Belisarius, upon reaching Byzantium with Gelimer and the Vandals, was counted worthy to receive such honours, as in former times were assigned to those generals of the Romans who had won the greatest and most noteworthy victories. And a period of about six hundred years had now passed since anyone had attained these honours, except, indeed, Titus and Trajan, and such other emperors as had led armies against some barbarian nation and had been victorious. For he displayed the spoils and slaves from the war in the midst of the city and led a procession which the Romans call a "triumph," not, however, in the ancient manner, but going on foot from his own house to the hippodrome and then again from the barriers until he reached the place where the imperial throne is. And there was booty,—first of all, whatever articles are wont to be set apart for the royal service,—thrones of gold and carriages in which it is customary for a king's consort to ride, and much jewelry made of precious stones, and golden drinking cups, and all the other things which are useful for the royal table. And there was also silver weighing many thousands of talents and all the royal treasure amounting to an exceedingly great sum (for Gizeric had despoiled the Palatium in Rome, as has been said in the preceding narrative), and among these were the treasures of the Jews, which Titus, the son of Vespasian, together with certain others, had brought to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem. And one of the Jews, seeing these things, approached one of those known to the emperor and said: "These treasures I think it inexpedient to carry into the palace in Byzantium. Indeed, it is not possible for them to be elsewhere than in the place where Solomon, the king of the Jews, formerly placed them. For it is because of these that Gizeric captured the palace of the Romans, and that now the Roman army has captured that the Vandals." When this had been brought to the ears of the Emperor, he became afraid and quickly sent everything to the sanctuaries of the Christians in Jerusalem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.109.13.0 (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't really agree with the change of title. It does not need disambiguating from any other article, "Vandals" is the natural search term for this article, the subject is perfectly clear from the first sentence, and the hatnote clears up any remaining difficulty. Vandals continues to redirect here so it makes sense to return to the original title and cut out the redirection. SpinningSpark 19:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Either "Vandals" or "Vandal tribe" would be a good title. I moved it to the latter so as not to simply revert the move to "Vandals (tribe)". In general, "vandal" is much more commonly used to mean s.o. who commits vandalism, but within WP I imagine most uses refer to the tribe, though I'm not sure about that. — kwami (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

From the log I don't think it's entirely clear why the article was moved. I would be interested in hearing Hmains' more detailed explanation. Nev1 (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Presumably because this is not what one normally means when one says "vandal". That's a legitimate point. On the other hand, when we link the word "vandal" in an article, this probably is what we usually mean. I have no idea how often our readers would want one or the other when they type "vandal" in the search window. — kwami (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if I was not clear. Since the common use of vandal is to someone who destroys something and to match the category name Category:Vandals (tribe), which it now again does not match. Hmains (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Matching the article name exactly to the category name is not very important. The category name requires a disambiguation in it to ensure that incorrect articles are not put in the category. The same argument does not apply to the main article name. SpinningSpark 01:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I think people should stop moving the article around while this is discussed, that is not helpful. I do not see the advantage of making the title more complex in this way. To the person searching for this article vandal tribe or vandals (tribe) is an unlikely thing to go in the search box so will not help them. For those searching for vandalism they are still redirected here from vandals so it has not helped them either. I am not advocating this, but vandals would have to become a disambiguation page for this to be of any use. Currently, users arriving at this page who do not want to be here are guided to the dab page with a hatnote rather than going straight to the dab page. Which is the right way of doing it? The traffic to vandals is substantially higher than the traffic to vandalism implying that it is reasonable to make this article the first port of call. Are substantial numbers arriving at the wrong article? Well if they were, presumably they would follow the hatnote to the dab page, but traffic to the dab page is very low implying that this done not happen often. The statistics are showing that a non-problem is being addressed and I advocate returning to the original title. SpinningSpark 01:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Hmains for explaining the move; I thought the reasoning might be something a long those lines. I understand the issue, but given the traffic statistics presented by Spinningspark I think the previous arrangement (with this article at "Vandals") worked. Actually, I find the low traffic to the hatnote surprising. Nev1 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If there are no more comments I will move it back to Vandals at the weekend. SpinningSpark 19:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever, just so it is not left as 'vandal tribe' which is very bad Hmains (talk) 06:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

What's a map like this based on? Why do these Wikipedia-generated maps not face the same scrutiny as text, which is peppered with [citation needed] at the least opportunity?--Wetman (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it actually exists on Commons who do not have (or want) a verifiability policy. SpinningSpark 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Re the {{cn}} template on the Hands of God symbol, there is some information on this site. Although it doesn't say so in the article, the photograph of the symbol is from a sword pommel. SpinningSpark 10:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The genetic of East Germany and Poland is close to baltic incl. west finns and swede. They all was East Germans. The polish sprite of SNP by R1a-Y-DNA is the story of the Mannus-Legend, of suebe, goths and vandale folk. The most polan tribe was not slavic or Scythic tribe, they was East Germans and member of vandales (or rugii). The german, baltic and nordish mythology is the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.65.41 (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some archaeologists and historians identify the Vandals with the Przeworsk culture, and controversy surrounds potential connections between the Vandals and another, possibly a mixture of Slavic and Germanic tribes, the Lugii (Lygier, Lugier or Lygians), which is referred to as inhabiting the area by Roman writers.

I think if this is read carefully, it will be seen to be unclear. "another what"? You think you know, but if you read it carefully, you don't. 98.82.23.7 (talk) 00:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Still, many believe that the Prekmurje Slovenians, a distinct group, trace their origins to the Vandal peoples. This is recorded in the 1771 translation of the new testament into the Prekmurje dialect of Slovenian.

Which has now been edit warred into the article. Is there any kind of scholarly source for this? If not, it needs to be removed. SpinningSpark 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, enough is enough, I have semi-protected the article to stop the edit warring. Although I did one of the reverts myself, I do not consider myself involved. I have no POV on whether this material should be in the article, my actions were merely to enforce WP:V. I am quite prepared to go to blocks on this if necessary. Perhaps those trying to edit war the material in can now come here and explain why the Prekmurje Slovenians need a mention in particular and why "It was once thought that the Slovenes were the descendants of the Vandals, but this is not the view of modern scholars" is not sufficient. SpinningSpark 21:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine but that wiki link cites to primary sources. The prekmurje language was long said to be the language of the Vandals. I think it is relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.122.32 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Section Language Change The Goths have left behind the only text corpus of the East Germanic language type: a 4th-century translation of the Gospels. to The Goths have left behind the only text corpus of the East Germanic language type: a 4th-century translation of the Gospels.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, My new book on the Vandals has just come out. I suggest it is added to the Further Reading section, as it is currently the only work that covers the entire history of the Vandal tribes: Cumberland Jacobsen, Torsten: A History of the Vandals. Westholme 2012. Kind regards, Torsten

Your claim to have produced "the only work that covers the entire history of the Vandal tribes" is curious as Merrills & Miles wrote The Vandals, which was published in 2010 and claims to be a "complete history" of the Vandals, and "the first book available in the English Language dedicated to exploring the sudden rise and dramatic fall of this complex North African Kingdom" [1]. Nev1 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: per Nev1. It is not the purpose of external links on Wikipedia to promote books (or anything else). SpinningSpark 11:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment for the above - I'm a well established and published Danish historian, who has worked with Late Antiquity for more than 18 years at Copenhagen University, The Royal Danish Arsenal Museum and the Danish Institute in Rome. Please grant me the respect that I know Merrills & Miles work, which is also quoted in the further reading list. They do not describe the early history of the Vandals, but focus on the African kingdom - as your quote also states. I'm alright with my book not being added, if you consider it promotion, but that could be said about all other books in the further reading, then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.88.107 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept that on trust, but I have not read the book and it really should be added by an independent editor who has. SpinningSpark 06:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree - no problem:-) I expect that you get a lot of requests that are mainly for promotions. Best, Torsten (sorry for not signing correctly - I'm not so experienced with the editing part of Wikipedia) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.103.88.107 (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I bought and read this book - it's very good and well worth including inn the 'Further Reading' section. --Jmullaly (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The book by Merrills and Miles is by classes better than the book by Jacobsen. To give an example, in complete ignorance of the modern research, Jacobsen starts with an assumed migration of the Vandals from Jutland to what is now Poland. He calls it "the first migration". However, such migration is not accepted in the "more serious" literature on the Vandals, which ether relegate this migration to the realm of fantasy or ignore it by starting Vandal history sometime in the 2nd century AD. Again, the relevant source for this Wikipedia article should be Merrills and Miles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This map is captioned "Mediterranean in 475 AD, showing the Vandal Kingdom at its maximal extension". This claim of "maximal extension" is contradicted by the other two maps (this one and this one) which both show a larger Vandal Kingdom.

Unless the caption in question actually means it was the maximum that the kingdom reached in the year 475, but this seems unlikely because it's so unusually specific. M-1 (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that the Vandals were Slavs. There names are all Germanic and the few fragments of Vandalic that survive confirm that they spoke an East Germanic ideom. However, their name does not mean "wanderer", instead it may be related to modern German "Wandel" meaning "change". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

They were scrunching the text with the image of the necklace, and there were two other maps I left that seem more useful (although neither is English!). Those maps were of the Vandals in northern Europe and of the Vandal kingdom in Africa. That makes a lot of sense.

The maps are no help. They are not about the Vandals and it is difficult to pick out what information about the Vandals they give you. They belong on different pages than this one. I could let the invasions one stay, although I'd only highlight the Vandals in the caption.

Text being scrunched is a ridiculous reason, by itself, for removing an image. The solution to that problem is to adjust the layout. It is true that the maps show a more general situation than just the vandal incursions, but they still paint a useful picture for the reader and are certainly more relevant to the section (Introduction into the Roman Empire) than an image of a necklace, so if anything has to be removed it should be that one. SpinningSpark 11:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. See Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image queuing and WP:IMAGELOCATION, also WP:IDD. Sandwiching text and overloading on images is something we don't do. As to the relevance of a necklace which was actually made by a Vandal, as opposed to a map made by a Wikipedia editor 1500 years later. . . And what the hell is "some pro-Vandal agenda"? Is your de-capitalising Vandal in your comment above indicative of an anti-Vandal agenda, an attempt to link an entire people group to delinquents and rioters? I see what's going on here. I bet you just love maps portraying these "vandals" as wreaking havoc all over Europe. Srnec (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The insertion of the following little paragraph is useless and arbitrary. I sense arrangance and the need of political correctness - "let's mention islam and they will be happy" - Who is "they"? - Islam, Arabic and all that needs to go away here, as the history in question took place before. For example you refer to Berber languages, as if the term "berber" is defined, but it is not yet. You finish with a remark about the ethymology of "Andalusia" - is that the subject here? Please stick to the subject, the facts and stay away from politix... I fail to see how you can justify the arabix term with the Amazigh one, because until Berber is defined and established, it's nothing but guesswork... And there is no belief whatsoever - Starting in the 70s, the arabo-islamist regimes of north africa began a compaign of CRIMINAL integration of African culture and history into the "Arab-Moslim World" - a big piece of crap from western intelligentia.... all to justify stealing natural resources... a bigger crime to justify a smaller one. What makes the term Arabic? borrowed by Arabs, sure... does that make it Arabic? Please refrain from stupid concepts such as "Muslim Iberia" - Land does not possess a conscious - the same would apply to States... You end up justifying acts and concepts totally against nature.

It is generally believed that the Arabic term for Muslim Iberia Al Andalus, and its derivative Andalusia, may be derived from the Berber pronunciation of Vandal: "Wandal". However, the theory has been disputed, and alternative etymologies for Andalusia have been proposed.[1][2]

Not done: The paragraph that's there has multiple sources, and this same topic is discussed (and sourced) in Wikipedia's article on Al-Andalus. I see no clear reason to remove the paragraph. If there's a specific edit you think should be made to the paragraph, or if you still feel that the paragraph should be removed entirely, please seek consensus for the changes before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thank you. --ElHef(Meep?) 15:57, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. The edit proposal is unclear and seems to be assuming an amazing amount of things "between the lines" which are not relevant to this article. I think it is uncontroversial to say that Andalucia and Al-Andalus are words with an Arabic heritage, and concerning whether Berber had a role in that word history I have no opinion. It sounds a bit speculative to me, and I would have though Wandal was also the original Germanic pronunciation, but then again we are saying that such a theory exists but is controversial. Question. Is there anything wrong with the sources cited or the way we are using them?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problems with the OPs post are much more basic than you are suggestion. He is completely ignorant of history and seems not to realise that there was indeed a Muslim conquest of Iberia. He certainly has not read Procopius and his description of the 6th century Berbers (Moors) who certainly did exist at that time. You would be wasting your time looking in to the quality of the sources on the basis of that rant. SpinningSpark 17:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The origin theory that links the East Germanic Vandals with Jutland has long been discarded in serious scholarly research. It was based entirely on a name similarity (Vendsyssal -> Vandal). It is still resurrected in (poorly researched) popular history books, but it is not longer accepted by the experts (See for example H. Castritiuts' book on "Die Wandalen".) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The article has many problems and contains wrong and misleading information. E.g. the gold jewellery shown on the right cannot be attributed as "Vandalic". Such ethnic attributions are "unscientific". The derivation of the name Al Andalus (Andalusia) from the ethnonym Vandal is hardly plausible. The Vandals, crossed that area briefly in the early 5th century, while the Berbers arrived there only in the early 8th century. In the meantime the region was consistently called Baetica, i.e. the name Andalusia cannot have been introduced by Berbers. Instead, there are plausible explanations linking the name to an Arabic origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 11:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen this issue about Berber being the source coming up before, and I guess the accusation being made is that we are giving undue weight to a minority position? I am not an expert but that seems to make sense to me. Indeed it seems obvious that the name probably has a quite direct link to the original Germanic pronunciation. Whether it came via Arabic or Berber or Latin or nothing seems very speculative and I wonder if we have any real source consensus? What sources are available for this matter? In the meantime maybe we can weaken our claim maybe? Any proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I would drop the reference to the name Andalusia completely, because it is of no importance to Vandal history. Alternatively one could mention that some scholars have tried to link Andalusia with the Vandal name (i.e. Vandalusia), but that such a hypothesis is impossible to verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.5.181.42 (talk) 08:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The link is so commonly mentioned (I think I even heard it on a TV documnetary) that it should be discussed in the article. Readers are likely to come to this article looking for information on just that item. It is better to have it discussed in the article in its proper scholarly context than to not have it and risk it being inserted by a passing reader as an undisputed fact. SpinningSpark 09:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the link is commonly mentioned and I am quite certain I have seen this mentioned in good sources. The thing I think being unduly stressed is the influence of Berber. I have only ever seen that mentioned in Wikipedia, and I think we can remove this at least as a first step?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on that myself. You could be bold and see if it's challenged. SpinningSpark 16:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, why be bold if I have no opinion about the sources? (Consider WP:PRESERVE.) So anyway, I went looking for the two sources we cite.

I found Burke here. (By the way it should specify Volume 1.) Although it mentions Berber people, it is specifically saying "Arabic" is the language from which the term came. Sounds much more reasonable and expected than what we have.

I found Mokhtar here. In this case we are also missing a volume number and it should be II. It says NOTHING about the language which influenced the Arabic province name (but it does as usual suggest a link to the old Germanic tribe).

So I shall adjust on a calm and steady basis, no bold speculations required. :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)